I know that you wanted Giorgio's opinion, and I look forward to it myself. Just wanted to answer the questions directed at me, and otherwise respond.
dhouwn wrote: Tom T. wrote:
We're all unpaid volunteers anyway, so if you want to volunteer your time on IRC...
I just thought that most of the users that are regulary active here on this forum would also be willing to idle in the channel so that there is always someone to answer a quick question (users from all timezones FTW). I know that I would.
This may come as a surprise, but not everyone is connected to the Internet 24/7, or even all day. Some of us have to work for a living, perhaps at jobs not involving an Internet connection, or not permitting the time to monitor chat continuously. Or not be willing to be interrupted when doing their jobs on the computer. Or may want to go swimming, etc.
Some mods and frequent users may be willing to "idle", as you say. It's only occasionally that a non-mod regular user responds to a posted question, and then usually to the basic ones, most of which are covered in FAQ, NoScript Quick Start Guide
, General Troubleshooting Instructions
, etc. Of course, anyone who can answer such questions is certainly welcome to.
The support team consists of four Mods based in the US, so that's a *max* of three time zones apart, and one sometimes-mod in the opposite quadrant of the hemispheres. It would take a lot of knowledgeable non-mod users to cover that channel 24/7. If that happens, great. I'm not opposing the idea per se, and I'm sorry if you thought I was. I was questioning whether it was practical. It could be a big help if I'm wrong.
Tom T. wrote:This "pro" user wouldn't touch IRC with a ten-meter pole.
Why's that? I meant "pro" in the sense of computer-savy and "into-it" enough to operate an IRC client software.
I understood. I meant "pro" enough to understand the dangers.
You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_R ... at#Attacks
Many other weaknesses and attacks out there. It's the same reason I don't participate in AIM (AOL Instant Messenger), Yahoo or MSN chat. Too infested with worms, viruses, trojans. Of course, if Giorgio can guarantee rock-solid security ....
It would have to be policed 24/7 against spam, profanity, flames, etc. ... This board has pretty good coverage, and if not covered at any given moment, any user can report a post, which flags it for the attention of all team members, so the next one to log on takes care of it, usually within a few hours. That may not be fast enough for "live", real-time evil going back and forth.
Tom T. wrote:FWIW, the only live chat I do, with trusted friends of course, is over a Hamachi VPN with AES-256 encryption, on a network whose access I control. I have to approve requests to join, even after they're given the network password. Better safe than sorry....
Well, there's the possibility of creating an invite-only, registered-users-only or password-protected channel, but my idea was more the one of a live-chat equivalent of this board (open to everyone, even non-registered users) rather than a coterie.
Understood the first time. Just saying what precautions *one particular user* takes before engaging in live chat.
The difference is that while this board, like any that permits user-uploaded content, may be subject to the posting of malicious links, images, etc., chat is going to open another port on the machine
(IIRC, 194 or 531, and the 6660-6697 range, including SSL channels), which no forum does. That's inviting trouble, to this security-conscious, somewhat-paranoid user.
Looking forward to Giorgio's response. Your intentions are certainly positive, and if somehow feasible, could be useful.
p. s. A forum has separate threads for each issue. How does one avoid the confusion of, say, 20 or 50 topics going on at one? Separate channels? (This is why Giorgio split from Mozilla forum and created this one, at his own expense. He was allotted *one* thread among all MZ threads, and it was getting impossible to see and follow everything.) I've had trouble chatting with *one* other person, when while one is typing a reply to one comment, the other is typing something else. Soon, you get discombobulated.